9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Also see M/S. UNITED METALS [ 2021 (12) TMI 1349 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 103 to 107/Lkw/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2022 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Shubham Rastogi, CA. For the Respondent : Shri Amit Nigam, DR. ORDER PER BENCH : This is bunch of five appeals by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow all dated 14.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and appeals be heard on merit. 3. The ld. DR did not raise any objection for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Finding the reasons for delay in filing the appeals plausible because of the various reasons mentioned in the petition for condonation of delay we condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved in these appeals. One of the appeal i.e. ITA No. 103/Lkw/2021 are reproduced below for ready reference: 1. The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at late fee u/s. 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. He strongly submitted that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in ITA No. 793, 794 and 795/Lkw/2015, wherein issue of charging of late fee u/s.234E has been held to be prospective. Further ld. counsel submitted that synopsis of the due date and date of filing of TDS return in respect of the present five appeals, the same is reproduced below: 6. Ld. counsel also placed on record the decision of coordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in the case of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 121 to 125/Lkw/2022 dated 26.07.2022 which squarely covered the issue in hand. On identical f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a aspect which may be required to be considered before such provisions is held to be retroactive in nature. Further, when any provision is inserted for liability to pay any tax or the fee by way of compensatory in nature or fee independently simultaneously mode and the manner of its enforceability is also required to be considered and examined. Not only that, but, if the mode and the manner is not expressly prescribed, the provisions may also be vulnerable. All such aspects will be required to be considered before one considers regulatory mechanism or provision for regulating the mode and the manner of recovery and its enforceability as retroactive. If at the time when the fee was provided under Section 234E, the Parliament also provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, since the impugned intimation given by the respondent-Department against all the appellants under Section 200A are so far as they are for the period prior to 1.6.2015 can be said as without any authority under law. Hence, the same can be said as illegal and invalid. .. .. 26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
